Hi, I'm a new photographer currently getting a master's degree in journalism for a career change. I have been shooting with a digital rebel and a Sigma 24-135 mm lens. I also have a longer telephoto lens that I'm happy with, but am looking at wide angle lenses now.
Now that the 20d's are out, I am going to buy a used 10d as my main camera and turn the dRebel into a backup. But I want to buy a wide angle lens - was thinking of the new Canon 10-22 coming out but, 1) I don't know when it will be released and 2) I would then have a lens that would not work on both my cameras.
As a result, I was looking at the Sigma 12-24 mm lens, however I have seen complaints of the sharpness. I am wondering if anyone out there thinks I should wait for the new Canon lens to come out and just deal with the fact that I need to use my dRebel if I think I'm going to need wide angle shots, or if I should just go with the Sigma. This is kind of based on a hunch that the new Canon glass may be a bit better than the existing Sigma - but again I am new to all this so opinions welcome.
Just buying a 20d would be a solution to this, but as a student I'm trying to invest my money in the best glass that I can afford until I graduate, as the dSLR camera body prices drop like computers in the long run, and I thiink the 10d is fine for my needs (feature-wise and price-wise) right now.
I'd also be open to suggestions for a wide angle prime lens, but at $800 for the new Canon Zoom that would be my max budget for the lens right now.
I have seen a lot of good comments for this lens, but would I be missing a lot of shots using a 17mm lens with the dSLR 1.6x crop factor? I do mainly GA photojournalism work, but also do landscape/street photography when I travel.
I personally don't think that 17mm on a 1.6 is any sort of a problem. It all depends on where you're shooting wide from -- and also what at. I remember taking photos at the Grand Canyon with my 50mm and 15mm fish and it being so vast that it was hard to tell the difference between the two.
Why not test it in store or buy it from somewhere with a 30-day refund policy?
Another option is to go with a fisheye. The only drawback is you can't zoom with it(unless you count your feet as a zoom) Both the Canon and Sigma are excellent. All you would need extra would be a program to de-fish your pictures. Some info can be found here.
Optically, you probably cannot go wrong with the 17-40L. An impressive lens for the price!
But the main question is: would it be wide enough for you ?
How much did you miss the wide angle with the 24-135 ? Do you really think that you need a lens that is wider by a factor 2x, like a 12-24 ? Basically one shot at 12mm allow you to capture the equivalent of 4 shots at 24 mm stitched together (a few more mm in the wide side are very important!).
If yes, the best solution is probably the 12-24. It performs quite well in many regards, such as very low distortion. Another very wide solution would be the sigma 15-30 (which gets some good comments as regards sharpness).
If no, then the 17-40 is much wider than the 24mm and should please you.
I have not very often had the feeling that the 17-40 was not wide enough. I mainly do landscape.
Thanks for the suggestions! Being new, I really appreciate it.
I thought I was missing out by just using the 24 mm lens with my camera, but this weekend I had an assignment to shoot a row of Victorian houses possibly up for demolition, and out of desperation brought my 18-55 kit lens. I found even going to just to an 18mm - it helped a lot! I didn't like the barrel distortion that came out in the photos, but got a feel for the range. I do think the 12mm would help in landscape shots and city shots when I travel, but again I'm pretty inexperienced in this area.
I also enjoy street photography, as well, in fact have a major project in which I need to shoot 10 photos inspired by Cartier-Bresson (ha, wish me luck).
Therefore, I also fear the size/weight of the lens as well, I think the new Canon is a bit smaller and weighs less . I believe th Sigma 15-30 is heavier than the 12-24, and saw many reviews mentioning lens flare with that one. With a fisheye, I'm not sure that I'd have the time to de-fish photos for shots for the paper or personally if I use it a lot... but then again, the 2.8 is really appealing...
Chris - yeah, I mentioned in the original post I knew the new Canon lens would not work on the 10d, so I'd have to just assume I'd be using the rebel when I thought I needed the wide angle. That would be one disadvantage of it, the Sigma would be usable by both.
The suggestion to go to a store with a 30-day refund policy is a good one. However, my town isn't that big and the one store I think that could order it, not sure that I'd be able to return it after ordered. But I should look into that option as well!
Wow ok I just looked at the thread for favorite lens/photo and saw a LOT of good postings with the 17-40L!! Also the 70-200 2.8, but we won't go there right now...
I'm tempted to get the 17-40 for now and if I need wider get the 10-22 when it comes out and I save up. Not sure though... hope I won't miss the wideness of the Sigma for now if I go this route...
I have the Sigma 15-30.. Had it since 9/17/01... before I had L fever... I don't think it holds up to my other lens and therefore do not use it very much... I bought it to take pictures of the inside of boats...
never thought to flash the wasia firmware on your dRebel?
you'd have some/most of the 10D capabilities, saving thus money for buying ANOTHER lens, i.e. you could buy the 17-40 AND the 12-24, or the 10-22 that would fit the camera.
and wait for the 20D when you'll can afford it.
regardless the lens, i also think the 17-40 is a good one: i would start with it, and maybe buy the wider next.
I started off with the 17-40L, but it was not wide enough for me, therefore I sold it and got the Sigma 15-30 instead. Flare and filter vignetting issues aside, the 15-30 gives me the wider view (24mm on a 1.6x) which I really want. Sharpness wide-open and distortion control is slightly better on the Sigma than the Canon on my copies of the lenses.
Amie, for street photography, I'd recommend a faster prime such as Sigma's 20/1.8. It's a great lens and sharpens up very nicely at f/2.8 altho it's still usable at f/1.8 and f/2.
Also, don't forget for images such as the row of houses you mentioned, you can take multiple images and join them into a panoramic using Photoshop or a dedicated pano program such as PanoTools.
Joe's suggestion regarding taking multiple images (or even just two) is a good idea. I have the superb 17-40 and often resort to doing this for a wider angle.
I saw the wasia firmware and will probably try it out... being a bit of a techie myself (have a bs in computer engineering before I decided I wanted to do journalism). However, I wanted to buy a second camera body so I'd have a backup anyway in case my main went down, and now I can get a 10d for less than what i originally paid for the digital rebel. I know among others, Wash. Post staff photogs were using 10ds (except for sports and special situations that required more speed) until the 20ds recently came out, so that's another reason the 10d is good enough for me right now.
I'm thinking I may go with the 17-40 but the new Canon lens still tempts me because I've read and heard so many times that the 16-35 lens is a bread-n-butter lens for photojournalists - and that is what the 10-22 would be with the 1.6x crop factor.
I know many times when you work for a newspaper they supply you with equipment, but I may go abroad after I graduate and work for an english-language publication somewhere - so in that case I'll probably need my own equipment. Also in any case I want to make sure I'm used to working with the standard 'tools of the trade.'
personally I like a large degree of barrel distortion and I think it works well for journalistic photography. I just picked up a wide angle today -- a Vivitar Series 1 19-35 f3.5-4.5. While my budget is certainly much less than yours, I think you don't need to spend an exhorbitant amount on a good wide angle that you can even print with, stopped down a tad. There are nice offers from Tamron, Tokina, and Vivitar at the 19-35 range for anywhere from $80 (used in good condition on Ebay) to $179 (new from Ebay and several other online retailers). The Tokina is often recommended -- "fantastic plastic" for about $200 at the most, and even less if you purchase on Ebay. But I do second the other users who recommended the 17-40L -- it's a great lens. The Sigma 12-24 is also very highly recommended, and I think the 16-35L is also (might be discontinued?). Good luck! I love wide angle.
